License fee increase
- Thread starter Bigslam51
- Start date
- 39,068
- 274
The DOW wants to raise hunting and fishing license fees. The DNR said no as they said it has historically caused a drop in hunting and fishing license sales. The DNR said the DOW needs to look internally for budget saving opportunities. The DNR said if the DOW was unable to work within their budget then they may get absorbed by the DNR.
I don't support it at all. For the past 8 years the DOW has spent considerable effort decimating our deer population. They've bent over backwards to protect the profits of big insurance and pandered to farm lobbyist and sportsmen have taken a back seat. They knew this would happen from the start. Tonkovich himself told a group of us he didnt think they wouldn't reach their low population goal because people would quit hunting. Not they want to balance the books on the backs of the sportsmen they told to take a back seat. They want the very people they screwed over to pay to make up for it. I say they made their bed they can lay in it.
Years ago I told you guys on here, and I will have to look back and find it, that once the DOW successfully decimated our deer population they would try to raise license and tag fees to make up for the lost in revenue. At the end of the day that is exactly what this boils down to. The Dow has screwed over there paying customers opting instead to pacify insurance companies and are now paying the budgetary price. Unless they can get the remaining Hunters to make up the difference.
Now that the time has come and it has been denied they want to cry in the court of public opinion about how great they are for hunters, how absorbing them into the DNR would be such a travesty and a bunch of other scary soft-story stuff.
I don't support it at all. For the past 8 years the DOW has spent considerable effort decimating our deer population. They've bent over backwards to protect the profits of big insurance and pandered to farm lobbyist and sportsmen have taken a back seat. They knew this would happen from the start. Tonkovich himself told a group of us he didnt think they wouldn't reach their low population goal because people would quit hunting. Not they want to balance the books on the backs of the sportsmen they told to take a back seat. They want the very people they screwed over to pay to make up for it. I say they made their bed they can lay in it.
Years ago I told you guys on here, and I will have to look back and find it, that once the DOW successfully decimated our deer population they would try to raise license and tag fees to make up for the lost in revenue. At the end of the day that is exactly what this boils down to. The Dow has screwed over there paying customers opting instead to pacify insurance companies and are now paying the budgetary price. Unless they can get the remaining Hunters to make up the difference.
Now that the time has come and it has been denied they want to cry in the court of public opinion about how great they are for hunters, how absorbing them into the DNR would be such a travesty and a bunch of other scary soft-story stuff.
I fully support it. The Ohio wildlife council is made up of members with MANY interests, not just deer hunting. I personally know members on the board and I trust their request for this minimal $3 increase to preserve and protect ALL wildlife in the great state of Ohio!
Last edited:
Joe, whether you support their management decisions regarding deer or not, the DOW being absorbed by the ODNR or combining it with another agency would not be a good thing for sportsmen and women. Not supporting an increase because you have an axe to grind is a poor reason. And also, regardless of what ever became of the deer population, the license fee increase was imminent. You aren't the Nostradamus of DOW happenings.
I support the increase as I think not having one is only going to make matters worse. The wildlife officers hands are already tied up enough and placing more responsibility on them will only further escalate matters that need attention.
- 39,068
- 274
How about providing a more populated product thus increasing systainable participation and revenue. Not decreasing both the population and sales then trying to balance the revenue losses on the backs of hunters. No matter how you slice the pie that is EXACTLY what this is.
They dug themselves into this hole and are now playing the sob story doom and gloom fiddle to try to come out ok. Perhaps a merger coupled with a leadership change is exactly whats needed. It cant be any worse for sportsmen as we've gotten the back seat shaft to insurance companies and farm bureau for the past 8 years anyway.
Besides. I thought the sportsman interest was preserved with this new Deer hunters stakeholder conglomeration. If so then it shouldn't matter if they deal with the DOW or a combined ODNR. Right.... Right....
I've lived and hunted through the thick and thin, or to say no deer and plenty deer. Seen my 1st deer in NW Ohio in 1961 and the sighting was wrote up in the newspaper.
Took my 1st Ohio deer in 1972 and less than 6,000 deer taken in Ohio the entire year.
Fast forward to the early year 2000's and 200,000 plus deer are taken each year.
Then today and only 180,000 or so are taken and cry goes up the sky is falling down.
I really don't think so!
Do I want to go back to the days of no deer or less than today's number of course not.
Over all what I'm saying deer hunting today is damn good in Ohio. Yes there or areas of few deer and areas of many deer. But everyone can't expect to walk out their back door and bump into a nice big buck. If you want that to happen then move to a area that has those big buck.
Been there and lived through it in my life time. The main problem is the younger you are haven't seen the truly lean years in deer hunting or sightings.
Like I said overall Ohio has good deer hunting for the masses.
I seen no harm in a minor $3 increase in hunting tags. If that little $3 stops someone from hunting they were ready to stop anyway. Poor excuse in my mind.
But NR tag increases should be in line with what the state the hunter lives in for NR tag amounts. If the hunter's state charges say $2-400 for a NR deer tag then that same amount should be charged to NR hunter hunting in Ohio. Fair is fair.
Took my 1st Ohio deer in 1972 and less than 6,000 deer taken in Ohio the entire year.
Fast forward to the early year 2000's and 200,000 plus deer are taken each year.
Then today and only 180,000 or so are taken and cry goes up the sky is falling down.
I really don't think so!
Do I want to go back to the days of no deer or less than today's number of course not.
Over all what I'm saying deer hunting today is damn good in Ohio. Yes there or areas of few deer and areas of many deer. But everyone can't expect to walk out their back door and bump into a nice big buck. If you want that to happen then move to a area that has those big buck.
Been there and lived through it in my life time. The main problem is the younger you are haven't seen the truly lean years in deer hunting or sightings.
Like I said overall Ohio has good deer hunting for the masses.
I seen no harm in a minor $3 increase in hunting tags. If that little $3 stops someone from hunting they were ready to stop anyway. Poor excuse in my mind.
But NR tag increases should be in line with what the state the hunter lives in for NR tag amounts. If the hunter's state charges say $2-400 for a NR deer tag then that same amount should be charged to NR hunter hunting in Ohio. Fair is fair.
Last edited:
- 25,127
- 261
I'm in favor of doubling all fees. If by doubling we would actually get a call back from a WO. The way I currently see things, our fees are only covering the cost of the WO's VM... Why not double or triple fees so there is actually a WO available. One per county is a bit weak IMO.
Seriously, I don't mind a proposed increase. It's due.
Seriously, I don't mind a proposed increase. It's due.
- 25,127
- 261
The 'younger" have no idea what it is to go kill a wild pheasant, quail or grouse.
Tradeoffs. Since farming practices have changed, the only critters left to hunt are deer. If some farmers had their way, there would be none of them either.
True in the 1950's we would see flocks of 50-100 pheasants when the snow covered the ground. Then came fall plowing and DDT spraying plus fence row clearing for larger farm equipment. That continues today.
But also there were ZERO deer in or around Ottawa, OH until 1961.
The article clearly states that it covers more than just deer and deer hunting. The county where i live doesn't even have an active game warden. We are being covered by an adjoining county officer. There is no way the job that needs done is being done by 1 guy. So i wouldn't care if they raised it 10 or 20 dollars.
Double? I'm sure I'd still buy a $48 deer tag...turkey would be out the window though. I'd support a double increase on the generals, but not everything. I also think they should come up with a public land stamp that you have to buy.
Shortly I'll have 3 kids following me through the woods. At that point, I'm sure the wife will be going along as well. A double in taxes will hurt. If going to good use, I don't mind and increase in some areas.
Add all this to the cost of leasing land...makes me sick. Doctors and lawyers game, sticking it to the everyday outdoorsman. Selling everything and buying more land looks better and better every day. Big picture for the future of hunting looks pretty sickening.
Frank...you DID what I need to do for me and mine. What matters to me has no chance in the real world, time to make my own.
Giles-26 yrs ago I was in the right place at the right time. Bought my farm out of a estate from a woman my wife worked with. Never hit the market. They couldn't sell the property for $3K per ac. Took me over 1 year to buy it. Now 5 ac lots go for $60K plus that's $12K per ac as zoning is 5 ac because of poor soil for septic system with 200 ft road frontage.
Nice thing is I have the last 3- 5 ac lots available on this road for couple miles and nothing between here and town and I have nothing is for sale.
Nice thing is I have the last 3- 5 ac lots available on this road for couple miles and nothing between here and town and I have nothing is for sale.
- 39,068
- 274
Simply because something was worse then doesn't make it okay today, especially when harvest numbers are 30% or more off peak.
Imagine if such reasoning was used for something like Silverback gorillas. There were only 3 left in the wild 40 years ago, and then we grew it to 20, but we killed half of them a couple years back, but its totally cool because 10 is way more than 3.
Granted thats a very over simplified example, but it attempts to show that just because there are more today does not mean killing half of them is insignificant or ok. Especially if it was done for no other reason than to shore up the profits of big insurance companies.
The DOW has saved insurance companies tens of millions of dollars in decreased payouts for deer vehicle accidents over the past three years. And they've done it to the detriment of the deer population, hunters, and their own revenue stream of tag and license sales. Why don't they go ask their insurance buddies to cover their self inflicted budget shortfalls?
I understand the DOW has budget problems, I understand the DOW needs more funding, perhaps they should have thought about that before they decimated the population and hurt their paying customers. They did! Tonk himself told us that he didn't believe they would reach their population goal because too many people would stop hunting. They knew this would cause funding problems long before they did it. Yet they did it anyway and now they're trying to sucker the very people they screwed over into paying more to make up for it.
I'm not surprised, I knew there would come a day when they wanted hunters to pay more for less. I said it on here years ago. It was inevitable that they would eventually try to raise prices to make up for the loss in the license and tag sales they themselves caused.
I refuse to support it on that principal alone. They made their bed and should feel the reprocussion of it regardless of the outcome. They knowingly did this to themselves and now they want to balance the books on the backs of the people they screwed.
cspot
Member
cspot
Member
I agree. Personally I think $24 is plenty steep enough for a turkey tag. I would much rather pay much more for the general license and then keep the other stuff relatively low.
Big_Holla
Senior Member
Wonder how much revenue the landowner tag would bring if all had to buy tags? I can't think of another state where you don't have to buy a state tag for a state animal simply because you hunt your own land. Just a thought anyways as every dime counts, probably not enough $$ to even worry about I'm sure....
Ok, for the folks thinking that the Consolidation of both entities is a bad thing, what is the basis for your concerns?
Consolidation will usually create savings in both personnel and benefits.....
Consolidation will usually create savings in both personnel and benefits.....